I have tried in the previous post. Given the quickness of your response I question whether you have taken the time to really read and digest and understand it.

No, you absolutely didn't. You questioned my grasp of rhetoric. You made no attempt, anywhere, to answer the question.

You find it difficult to answer the question "Do you not agree that putting a man on the men helps to define America's greatness?"

It's an easy question to answer.

The problem is that if you answer "yes", then suddenly America's greatness is down to its tyranny.

If you answer "no", you're... fucking insane.

You argue you're living in a tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that you're proud of the fruits of this tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that the system of "tyranny" and "stealing" has brought magnificence to your nation, and benefits that the rest of the world has been jealous of, and that you, yourself have enjoyed.

You want to score a political point. You have to turn your back on your nation to do it.

The problem is that if you answer "yes", then suddenly America's greatness is down to its tyranny.

If you answer "no", you're... fucking insane.

False dilemma anyone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You argue you're living in a tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that you're proud of the fruits of this tyranny. You can't bring yourself to admit that the system of "tyranny" and "stealing" has brought magnificence to your nation, and benefits that the rest of the world has been jealous of, and that you, yourself have enjoyed.

One of the right's favorite presidents to hate gave America a big dose of painful truth. Looking back on his words, he had amazing foresight. I wish he were wrong, but we followed the wrong path as a nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exceprt of Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech

We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.

All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our Nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.

And another choice excerpt...

Quote:

What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

If you're getting pleasure about pissing people off then perhaps you should see a psychologist. That's the most basic symptom of psychopathy. Seriously.

Pleasure? No. Not pleasure. I just think it's funny. It's funny (and amazing) how easily and quickly those on the left begin to go apoplectic and start frothing at the mouth when someone doesn't see it their way. The moment someone they're arguing with has the temerity to suggest that the way they see the world and assume it to work isn't quite how they think and things start to short circuit. It's really quite astonishing actually. Seriously.

Pleasure? No. Not pleasure. I just think it's funny. It's funny (and amazing) how easily and quickly those on the left begin to go apoplectic and start frothing at the mouth when someone doesn't see it their way. The moment someone they're arguing with has the temerity to suggest that the way they see the world and assume it to work isn't quite how they think and things start to short circuit. It's really quite astonishing actually. Seriously.

What does this have to do with Left vs Right ???
I thought we were discussing the merits of Science (Evolution) vs Fantasy (creationism).

My second sentence there should tell you how I feel about the topic in THIS thread... but I'm fairly certain you'd consider my politics to be pretty far "right".

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

Yeah, usually I can't stand what KoSH has to say because it embodies such a selfish fiscal ideology. But at least he doesn't live in fairy tale land. I feel sorry for you, man. It always sucks ending up on the same side as people who are...far less than intellectual...in basically every other topic.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Well, yes, that's one instance. The other, of course, is when the one your chatting with starts frothing at the mouth and spewing all sorts of insulting nonsense. At that point the discussion is over. BTW, "when you don't have any real argument other than conjecture" is exactly when the frothing at the mouth and spewing of insults starts too. Interesting that.

Well, yes, that's one instance. The other, of course, is when the one your chatting with starts frothing at the mouth and spewing all sorts of insulting nonsense. At that point the discussion is over. BTW, "when you don't have any real argument other than conjecture" is exactly when the frothing at the mouth and spewing of insults starts too. Interesting that.

I'm going to talk about one or two peer reviewed papers, but in doing so, I'm going to have to say a few words ... and this will not be pretty ... about a certain science writer's report at the BBC.
In an article titled "Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims" BBC "science writer" Howard Falcon-Lang uses the old, tired, and quite frankly, stupendously unethical tack of making a claim that Darwin has been overthrown by new research. If someone actually overthrows Darwin, then so be it. But this is not what has happened. Falcon-Lang, or perhaps his BBC handlers, have used the cheap trick to sell their wares, and this is not appreciated.

"But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution." (Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims--23 August 2010 Last updated at 17:26 ET)

Quote:

Never start a sentence, let alone a paragraph, with the word "but" especially when the rest of the essay is something one has essentially pulled out of one's "butt."

Quote:

The idea of empty niches being filled by the available taxa is not new, nor is the idea that an evolutionary "event" .... like some non-flying taxon developing the power of flight .... results in species radiation. What is new in this paper is that a survey has been done using relatively good available data that demonstrates this concept.

There has not been an overthrow of Darwin, though I'm sure various creationists will now incorrectly and inappropriately use this press report to suggest that there has been. There has not been the introduction of a new idea regarding macroevolution, though the work here is important and interesting. As is often the case with evolutionary biology, the specific role of natural selection (and in this entire discussion, read "natural selection" when you see "competition") vs. opportunity (read "drift"), and different people with different views will differentially see the role of one or the other as more important as they look at the same data. The realty of the situation is probably simpler: Competitive advantages have a chance of winning out, in the same way that buying a lottery ticket with better odds makes you more likely to win. But you'll probably still lose. But to even buy the lottery ticket, there has to be one of those little gas stations on the corner that sells them.

Reaching out toward the stars is the single greatest achievement our species has ever made. Our future depends on us uniting and reaching outward. We can't keep all our eggs in one basket.

I'm damn proud of what we did. You're right Mumbo, it's quite a simple question.

I'm proud of what we did, as well. But further high-budget non-commercially applicable space exploration is something that should be put on hold until we can afford it, at least for a little while. When Kennedy did it, we were not in the middle of a great recession.

Pushing out to space improves our lives here at home, as well. There's a lot of jobs in aerospace if we're making a serious push out there. And the advancements in technology we get as a byproduct have already benefited our society and would continue to do so in the future.

And if anything can make us forget our petty differences for a little while, it would be the images of the first human to set foot on another planet.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Pushing out to space improves our lives here at home, as well. There's a lot of jobs in aerospace if we're making a serious push out there. And the advancements in technology we get as a byproduct have already benefited our society and would continue to do so in the future.

Yes, which is why we should continue our pursuit when we can afford it.

Quote:

And if anything can make us forget our petty differences for a little while, it would be the images of the first human to set foot on another planet.

Except that a Mars landing will not happen for at least 25 years if we start right now with full budget.

Human beings landed on the moon. If I were American, I might point to this achievement and say "This defines my nation's greatness."

Do you not agree with this, MJ1970?

You keep mixing and muddling two things and it's bizarre that you do not see it.

Was putting a man (several actually) an extraordinary achievement of human ingenuity, engineering, science and general human endurance and risk? Absolutely. I agree with that.

But you then make the leap to say that "This defines my nation's greatness." You want to say that the various things you have listed are what makes America great. I don't agree. Some of them are great achievements, but these are not what makes American great or defines America's greatness.

What makes America great, what defines America's greatness was its love and championing of freedom...not putting a man on the moon. The end value of putting a man on the moon is debatable. But the end value of championing and protecting freedom is much less debatable (to me anyway). Then we are now in the realm of opinions rather than objective facts.

Now, having said that, I think we should get back to why it someone like BR (and perhaps others also) advocate the forced government schooling of kids if their parents won't teach them what he (and perhaps others also) thinks they should teach them (e.g., the pseudo-science of Evolution).

You keep mixing and muddling two things and it's bizarre that you do not see it.

Was putting a man (several actually) an extraordinary achievement of human ingenuity, engineering, science and general human endurance and risk? Absolutely. I agree with that.

But you then make the leap to say that "This defines my nation's greatness." You want to say that the various things you have listed are what makes America great. I don't agree. Some of them are great achievements, but these are not what makes American great or defines America's greatness.

What makes America great, what defines America's greatness was its love and championing of freedom...not putting a man on the moon. The end value of putting a man on the moon is debatable. But the end value of championing and protecting freedom is much less debatable (to me anyway). Then we are now in the realm of opinions rather than objective facts.

Now, having said that, I think we should get back to why it someone like BR (and perhaps others also) advocate the forced government schooling of kids if their parents won't teach them what he (and perhaps others also) thinks they should teach them (e.g., the pseudo-science of Evolution).

Why do you find it so difficult to agree with the idea that putting a man on the man might be an emblem of your country's greatness?

Very strange.

Is it because this magnificent achievement was paid for by taxes?

That must be it.

Beating fascism in the Second World War. Do you think you have any reason to be proud of that?

Evolution is not pseudo-science, by the way. "Evolution" is grounded in excellent, exhaustive research spanning over a hundred and fifty years. In fact, "evolution" depends on the many different sciences (genetics, archaeology, anatomy, geology and anthropology among them).

It should be taught in schools because it's the best solution to the question of "how did we get here?"

It's the only answer that fits the evidence and does not depend on myth.

I want it taught to my children. They can learn about your Book in religious studies class, as they should.

Why do you want to tell my children that myth is truth? Can't you keep your fundamentalist nonsense to your own children? It's not 1859 anymore.

Why do you find it so difficult to agree with the idea that putting a man on the man might be an emblem of your country's greatness?

Very strange.

Is it because this magnificent achievement was paid for by taxes?

That must be it.

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Beating fascism in the Second World War. Do you think you have any reason to be proud of that?

I'd be more proud of it if we didn't then subsequently (or in parallel) adopt fascism (and socialism) in this country. And more proud of it if the actions of this country's government didn't help lead up to and foster the things that happened in Europe in the 1st and 2nd world wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Evolution is not pseudo-science, by the way. "Evolution" is grounded in excellent, exhaustive research spanning over a hundred and fifty years. In fact, "evolution" depends on the many different sciences (genetics, archaeology, anatomy, geology and anthropology among them).

It should be taught in schools because it's the best solution to the question of "how did we get here?"

It's the only answer that fits the evidence and does not depend on myth.

I want it taught to my children. They can learn about your Book in religious studies class, as they should.

Good for you. So let me ask this: Do you, as does BR, advocate the forced government school of children whose parents don't teach them what you think they should be taught?

The Second World War was one tyranny fighting another. Your victory was a victory for tyranny. I understand. It's nothing to be proud of. You've made yourself clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Good for you. So let me ask this: Do you, as does BR, advocate the forced government school of children whose parents don't teach them what you think they should be taught?

Well, it should be law, yeah, that children should go to school unless there's a damn good reason for them not to. But I suppose it should be possible for you to teach your children any old shit you like if you really insist.

The age of the universe and the age of the earth aren't in any serious debate in any university on this earth or among any naturalists or geologists or anatomists or geneticists or in fact scientist anywhere. There are exceptions, but there is no serious evidence that they're right.

The case has been proven so comprehensively and conclusively, so absolutely, so totally, that to deny it is to enter a world where myth is more important than evidence.

In this world, the world in which we all live, the science of evolutionary theory is by far the only explanation that makes sense. There are mythical explanations (Christians and Muslims and Hindus and animists and worshippers of Obtatala all have one) and they're all equally as likely, which is, not likely at all. Myth is myth.

Of course the science should be taught. It's the only explanation with any evidence. And that evidence is so overwhelming, so conclusive, that to even compare it to the mythical explanation is completely retarded.

It's not a question of 'forcing' anyone. There's no debate that it's right. The only people who object are religious fundamentalists, and to deny our children a view of the world so clearly correct is verging on child abuse, in my opinion.

Well, it should be law, yeah, that children should go to school unless there's a damn good reason for them not to. But I suppose it should be possible for you to teach your children any old shit you like if you really insist.

So you do reluctantly support some degree of liberty. Well that's a good start. Congratulations!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

The age of the universe and the age of the earth aren't in any serious debate in any university on this earth or among any naturalists or geologists or anatomists or geneticists or in fact scientist anywhere. There are exceptions, but there is no serious evidence that they're right.

The case has been proven so comprehensively and conclusively, so absolutely, so totally, that to deny it is to enter a world where myth is more important than evidence.

In this world, the world in which we all live, the science of evolutionary theory is by far the only explanation that makes sense. There are mythical explanations (Christians and Muslims and Hindus and animists and worshippers of Obtatala all have one) and they're all equally as likely, which is, not likely at all. Myth is myth.

Of course the science should be taught. It's the only explanation with any evidence. And that evidence is so overwhelming, so conclusive, that to even compare it to the mythical explanation is completely retarded.

You can save the sermon for someone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

It's not a question of 'forcing' anyone.

Actually, in my discussion with BR at least, it seemed he was quite uncomfortable with the idea that anyone wouldn't be teaching the faith to which he (and you) subscribes and that parents should not really be allowed to do that. He appeared to be advocating forcing kids to be taught (in government schools of course) what he thinks they should be taught. So, in that sense, it is about forcing someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

There's no debate that it's right.

Well, obviously there is. Just because you dismiss it, doesn't make it go away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

The only people who object are religious fundamentalists, and to deny our children a view of the world so clearly correct is verging on child abuse, in my opinion.

Good for you. So let me ask this: Do you, as does BR, advocate the forced government school of children whose parents don't teach them what you think they should be taught?

I don't know if Mumbo does. But I'm sure you do, don't you? If parents were teaching their kids how to build bombs and neglecting to teach them how to read, wouldn't you want the government to step in? Or would you prefer to have the government let them be? Do you think home schooling permits should be required? Do you think parents of home schooled kids should have minimum education requirements? Do you think it's alright, for instance, if an illiterate single immigrant decided to keep her kid out of school? Do you think the minimum curriculum of the three r's should be required? Perhaps annual testing?

Actually, in my discussion with BR at least, it seemed he was quite uncomfortable with the idea that anyone wouldn't be teaching the faith to which he (and you) subscribes...

You don't get it. Nothing BR, Mumbo and I think should be taught in schools has anything to do with "faith". Science is not "faith". It is fact or theory supported by physically measurable evidence and, most importantly, open to challenge when more evidence appears (which it does on a regular basis). That's the distinction.

Evolutionism refers to a theory of evolution, specifically to a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves...Wikipedia.org

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations...Merriam-Webster On-Line

NO REFERENCE TO SCIENCE THERE, JUST THEORY!

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form...Free On-Line Dictionary